Subject: Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable? (was: N : M transformation) From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:12:06 +0100 |
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:48:52PM +0100, Tobias Reif wrote: > Daniel Veillard wrote: > > > >>I agree that dependency on WXS is a bad aspect, but I think it won't be > >>required for all implementations. > >> > > First news to me, how can you back-up that statement ? > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#import-schema > " > Issue 125 (schema-conformance): > We need to describe a conformance level that does not require schema > support. > " > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#issue-schema-conformance > " > Issue 125: schema-conformance > > Description: We need to describe a conformance level that does not > require schema support. > > Resolution: We decided that we should define a conformance level in > which schema processing was not required. The details, however, have not > been worked out. > " Okay, interesting. I assume this will affect XPath2 (though XPath 1 had no conformance clause since it was targetted by embedding in other specs)... > > Well that would probably lead to a complete revamp of > > of the structure part. > > > If that's what it takes to make the spec implementable (for you and > probably others), then this should be evaluated by the WG IMHO. The problem is that making "editorial" changes to a given revision of a spec and keeping the rev level is find, but if it's a rewrite it's also very dangerous, if both specs ends up diverging. > > I think Michael and Henry know me well enough, and that I propagated > > that back to them. It's also clear that I tried an implementation within > > libxml2 but it became quickly too painful that I focused on other targets. > > > My personal POV is: > I like XSLT, and I see room for improvement in XSLT 1.0 (regexen, > multiple output files, etc). > So I'd be very happy to see XSLT evolve in a direction which addresses > some of these areas (as the current draft of 2.0 does in some of the > perhaps less controversial parts). > But all that has no value if it won't be widely implemented, which can > only happen if (at leat some of the) implementers (of the currently > popular processors) can implement it, and see value in doing so. there is also little values in specs that are not fully implemented if each tool/vendor has it's own supported subset you end up with something terrible for the users. [...] > "I can't implement a specification I don't understand." > > then that means that other implementers probably have rightful concerns > about the current draft as well. Hum, there might have been a misunderstanding, I didn't said that for XPath2/XSLT2 but for XML Schemas Structure. And it's not a draft it's a REC, i.e. cast in stone. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/ veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Tobias Reif | Thread | Re: [xsl] is XSLT 2.0 implementable, Tobias Reif |
Re: [xsl] 10 records per page, J.Pietschmann | Date | Re: [xsl] N : M transformation, David Carlisle |
Month |